Quite a few years ago, while trying to develop an HO track cleaning device, I attached a battery car to power a standard DC locomotive. The rig took no power from the rails. The battery car carried four standard AA Energizer batteries, wired in series to put out 6 volts nominal.
Motivated by some of these discussions today I tried putting that rig onto my layout and turning it on. To my surprise it still ran. Though the batteries were rated to 2021 -- which I believe meant they were made in 2011 -- they were still good.
So I tried a little 'speriment...
I put that rig on my track and let it run on a loop non-stop, checking up on it every so often.
Now the loco wasn't running very fast, on only 6 volts, and it wasn't pulling much of a load, just the battery car, but it did run steady. In fact it ran for about 7 hours before the batteries were exhausted. Maybe it would have run longer with fresh batteries.
While that rig was dragging itself around my layout, like an Energizer Bunny in extremis, I did an online search for rechargable 9 volt batteries. You can buy an Energizer 9-volt Nickel-Metal-Hydride (NiMH) battery for about US$10.
I might do that just to see how much running time I could get out of one. Maybe buy two. Try wiring them in parallel -- 9 volts -- or series -- 18 volts.
It shouldn't be any trouble to hide two 9 volt batteries in a dedicated battery car.
ATLANTIC CENTRALWhat are the four digit numbers at the end of your posts about?
Sheldon:
I googled a couple of those numbers. If what I read was correct, I'm kind of thinking that neither of us would be very interested.
Same question here.
DoughlessI'm not following how wireless control, itself, would limit arching
it doesn't. i said micro-arcing "could corrupt receiving a DCC packet". wireless avoids a communication path where arching occurs.
DoughlessI think Thomas Edison said long ago, the science can produce a filiment bulb that lasts 20 years, but it would probably cost $5,000.
but sometimes a different approach is much cheaper
i imagine that while trying to take advantage of u-processor technology to individually control locomotives, various communication schemes were imagined. i had read about using frequency division multiplexing over the rails around 1980
the developers of DCC recognized that the same technology, H-bridges used to control motors could also be used to control/modulate the polarity of track voltage to send digital information and that it just required an inexpensive bridge rectifier in the decoder to rectify track polarity back to DC
4988
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregc Doughless Just Wanna Play And the reason for going wireless is to avoid signaling glitches due to intermittent wheel-to-rail contact. As for dead rail? I'm not an electronics subject matter expert. I don't understand this sentence, but maybe there is context I'm missing. my understanding is that that black stuff (not the crud) that accumulates on metal wheels that appears on paper towels used to clean wheels is due to micro-arcing between the wheels and rails. the micro-arcing is unlikely to cause a noticable power disruption that provents a loco from moving but could corrupt receiving a DCC packet. but DCC speed packets are repeatedly sent and unless there's a change in speed is only likely to result in a delay 4944
Doughless Just Wanna Play And the reason for going wireless is to avoid signaling glitches due to intermittent wheel-to-rail contact. As for dead rail? I'm not an electronics subject matter expert. I don't understand this sentence, but maybe there is context I'm missing.
Just Wanna Play And the reason for going wireless is to avoid signaling glitches due to intermittent wheel-to-rail contact. As for dead rail?
I'm not an electronics subject matter expert. I don't understand this sentence, but maybe there is context I'm missing.
my understanding is that that black stuff (not the crud) that accumulates on metal wheels that appears on paper towels used to clean wheels is due to micro-arcing between the wheels and rails.
the micro-arcing is unlikely to cause a noticable power disruption that provents a loco from moving but could corrupt receiving a DCC packet. but DCC speed packets are repeatedly sent and unless there's a change in speed is only likely to result in a delay
4944
I'm not following how wireless control, itself, would limit arching. Perhaps it was a short cut for assuming wireless coupled with dead rail.
I think arching is created by track imperfections, like scratches, perhaps poor joints, and also the black crud itself. The existance of some black crud begets more black crud, eventually.
Certainly non powered rails would eliminate these issues.
Something that another has mentioned....battery life. Just anectodally and not specific to trains, but the migration to LED lightbulbs has not created the long-lived light bulbs I thought were advertised. Just basing it upon the amount of time I spend still replacing burned out LED bulbs in my light fixtures.
I think Thomas Edison said long ago, the science can produce a filiment bulb that lasts 20 years, but it would probably cost $5,000.
My point is that manufacturing realities and the need for low cost items influences the longevitity of everything, even the stuff we are told should last a long time. How long would the lithium batteries that manufacurers put in our trains really going to last?
- Douglas
How does wireless control prevent track to wheel pickup issues? The loco still receives power from the rails with most wireless systems today.
Just Wanna PlayI'd still love to know where that crud on the wheels comes from
A question asked by many over many years. There have been extensive threads on the topic. I think it comes down to simple track oxidation...and ways to avoid it...and the transmission of oils onto the track. Human or locomotive. It could be a matter of one locmotive being offending for a period of time, and then each car picks up some oil that then gets redistributed long after we've corrected the problem with the one loco.
I think the solution to track dirtiness is to go through an entire system reset, so to speak. Clean all track. Clean all wheels on all locos and cars....yes all 200 of them, including the cars you haven't ran for three years....before you operate ever again.
Then don't lubricate anything. And keep your greasy meat mittens off of the equipment.
Then you can narrow it down to keeping up with the oxidation.
JMO.
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL The control signal is no longer subject to the wheel/rail electrical connection. if dirty track isn't causing a loco to intermittently stall, i don't believe it's a significant problem affecting control. i believe a bigger advantage of wireless is 2 way communication which a more sophisticated controller ($$) would take advantage of ATLANTIC CENTRAL The power supply, or power supplies on a larger layout now become simple regulated DC rather than $200 command stations and boosters. certainly, but wouldn't the radio devices in the loco be more expensive? after how locos would the break even point $$ be exceeded would you still want at least one circuit breaker ($$) since a typical wall wart power supply doesn't have current protection? ATLANTIC CENTRAL Just like RailPro, the radio reciever would be built into the decoder, so no not additional hardware in the loco, different hardware. wouldn't the circuit board need to be larger because it needs radio components in additon to whatever control and motor driver circuitry existing dcc decoders have? ATLANTIC CENTRAL No more radio throttle recievers - another expensive DCC part. what type of controller do you imagine? or do you imagine using a bluetooth/WiFi capable smartphone? 4866
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The control signal is no longer subject to the wheel/rail electrical connection.
if dirty track isn't causing a loco to intermittently stall, i don't believe it's a significant problem affecting control.
i believe a bigger advantage of wireless is 2 way communication which a more sophisticated controller ($$) would take advantage of
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The power supply, or power supplies on a larger layout now become simple regulated DC rather than $200 command stations and boosters.
certainly, but wouldn't the radio devices in the loco be more expensive? after how locos would the break even point $$ be exceeded
would you still want at least one circuit breaker ($$) since a typical wall wart power supply doesn't have current protection?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Just like RailPro, the radio reciever would be built into the decoder, so no not additional hardware in the loco, different hardware.
wouldn't the circuit board need to be larger because it needs radio components in additon to whatever control and motor driver circuitry existing dcc decoders have?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL No more radio throttle recievers - another expensive DCC part.
what type of controller do you imagine? or do you imagine using a bluetooth/WiFi capable smartphone?
4866
I would never use wall warts, the power supplies I use now with my Aristo System have circuit breakers, the Aristo base uint has a fuse. Even at todays prices, the power supplies I use are way cheaper than a DCC Command Station.
The throttle and the decoders would be the only dedicated pieces. Yes the throttle might be pricey - they are now in DCC as far as I am concerned.
No smart phones thank you - you have to look at touch screens to operate them, I want a throttle I can operate without looking at it like I have now. I hate touch screens.
Like everything in electronics, prices would drop as volume goes up. Maybe decoders with radio would be bigger and more expensive - but maybe not all that much.....
What are the four digit numbers at the end of your posts about?
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe control signal is no longer subject to the wheel/rail electrical connection.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe power supply, or power supplies on a larger layout now become simple regulated DC rather than $200 command stations and boosters.
ATLANTIC CENTRALJust like RailPro, the radio reciever would be built into the decoder, so no not additional hardware in the loco, different hardware.
ATLANTIC CENTRALNo more radio throttle recievers - another expensive DCC part.
The Train Engineer system had a dead rail modual near their end for HO. Since it has been so long, someone could reduce the size a lot as their original board was the size of original DCC decoders, kinda big at about an inch wide 1/2 inch tall and something less than 2 inch length.
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL I was talking about a dramtic reduction in under the layout hardware, not the equipment in the locomotive. doesn't radio require additional hardware in the loco? what problem does direct radio (Aristo, RailPro, Bluetooth, WiFi, ...) address? what underlayout hardware is eliminated by providing constant voltage to the track?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I was talking about a dramtic reduction in under the layout hardware, not the equipment in the locomotive.
doesn't radio require additional hardware in the loco?
what problem does direct radio (Aristo, RailPro, Bluetooth, WiFi, ...) address?
what underlayout hardware is eliminated by providing constant voltage to the track?
The power supply, or power supplies on a larger layout now become simple regulated DC rather than $200 command stations and boosters.
The control signal is no longer subject to the wheel/rail electrical connection. i do believe this would improve reliablity around thedirty track issue.
Depending on the details of the track plan, it may be possible to eliminate auto reversers. But, auto reversers may be one thing you would be stuck with.
Just like RailPro, the radio reciever would be built into the decoder, so no not additional hardware in the loco, different hardware.
And for those who insist on mixing control systems, it can work on DCC layouts or DC layouts simply by bringing your throttle with your loco and making thedecoder work on either power source.
No more radio throttle recievers - another expensive DCC part.
It works on the Charles Kettering theory - Parts left out cost nothing and cause no service problems - it reduces the number of parts in the command chain.
I was a bit surprised to see this thread has totaled 64 posts to date and nearly 5,000 views. I guess there are more people interested in the topic than I ever expected.
My thinking at the moment is some kind of wireless control is both desirable and practical, or at least on the verge of being practical. Maybe cost-competitive with DCC hardware. And the reason for going wireless is to avoid signaling glitches due to intermittent wheel-to-rail contact.
As for dead rail? Great in theory but not all that practical for HO and smaller scales. I see power-only live rail in combination with some form of keep-alive as the more workable setup. Capacitors? Rechargable batteries? Both have their plusses and minuses. The biggest challenge for both is how to fit them on board.
Dedicated power cars may be a good solution for HO dead rail or keep alive. Hey, here is a use for those dummy 'B' units!
With enough keep-alive storage track wiring can be simplified. With rechargable batteries the mainlines can be powered while sidings and such might not be. A real advantage? Probably not. The big advantage of keep-alive is now, and ever shall be, mitigating poor track contact.
I'd still love to know where that crud on the wheels comes from.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI was talking about a dramtic reduction in under the layout hardware, not the equipment in the locomotive.
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL It is called a flywheel. in dcc it's called a keep alive ATLANTIC CENTRAL Still seems to me, the best command control system would sent the control information thru the air directly to the locomotive, Bluetooth or some other radio protocol, but it would eliminate a lot of hardware for those not interested in signaling. wireless doesn't eliminate hardware in the loco, it requires more and dead-rail adds batteries. the other advantage of track power is for lighted cars ... ... as well as block detection
ATLANTIC CENTRAL It is called a flywheel.
in dcc it's called a keep alive
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Still seems to me, the best command control system would sent the control information thru the air directly to the locomotive, Bluetooth or some other radio protocol, but it would eliminate a lot of hardware for those not interested in signaling.
wireless doesn't eliminate hardware in the loco, it requires more and dead-rail adds batteries.
the other advantage of track power is for lighted cars ...
... as well as block detection
??????????????????????????
While others may have been talking about/supporting dead rail, I was only talking about how the control information gets to the locomotive.
I was talking about track powered direct radio - like RailPro.
https://www.ringengineering.com/#RailPro
Or it could be Bluetooth, but just not sending the communication info thru the track power.
I don't think dead rail is a good choice for small scales.
I'm talking about direct radio command signals with constant voltage track power.
I was talking about a dramtic reduction in under the layout hardware, not the equipment in the locomotive.
BUT, direct radio WITH dead rail is very popular among those in Garden Railroading.
I don't need dead rail, my trains don't suffer from performance issues related to dirty track or other "power pickup" issues.
Full Voltage Pulse Width Modulated speed control works very well in HO, and that is what my Aristo Throttles have.
ATLANTIC CENTRALIt is called a flywheel.
ATLANTIC CENTRALStill seems to me, the best command control system would sent the control information thru the air directly to the locomotive, Bluetooth or some other radio protocol, but it would eliminate a lot of hardware for those not interested in signaling.
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL And yet DCC still seems to be more sensitive to dirty track of course if power is lost for a long enough time for the processor to reset, it's going to take time to reboot and then wait to receive the speed command the error detection byte makes it is less sensitive to packet corruption because of dirty track.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And yet DCC still seems to be more sensitive to dirty track
of course if power is lost for a long enough time for the processor to reset, it's going to take time to reboot and then wait to receive the speed command
the error detection byte makes it is less sensitive to packet corruption because of dirty track.
And how many milliseconds of power loss does it take to reset the processor? My locos have a very reliable speed and direction memory for a few milliseconds. It is called a flywheel.
Again, I am only going by my own observations on about 6 large DCC layouts that I operated on for a number of years.
Still seems to me, the best command control system would sent the control information thru the air directly to the locomotive, Bluetooth or some other radio protocol, but it would eliminate a lot of hardware for those not interested in signaling.
Just Wanna PlayI assumed that imperfect contact between the loco wheels and the rails was generating sparks and some kind of electro-chemical reaction was generating the crud. But I was amazed at how much material built up with no clue as to where it was coming from. Sparks generate ozone, which is super-reactive. Was ozone eroding the nickel-silver rails? Was it also generating crud on the rails themselves? Good gosh, I dunno.
Eight-wheel pick up (4 axle diesels) helps to disburse the chances that too many wheels will be interrupted at the same time.
Part of the issue of signal disruption...a big part...is the design of the locomotive's system of current pick up and distribution to the Board. Some new locos still rely on wheel wipers (On some Bachmann's I've noticed). Less expensive and less reliable...even in DC. Many conversions of older locos still rely on less than stellar current pickup design.
Most new locos have more robust connections between the wheels, axles, and PC boards, but issues can still happen with loose wires, poor solders, and loose plugs....which would be an issue regardless of the power source.
All of my locos or of the more pricey types, and I would expect that they would work just fine over all of my track even when one truck is disconnected (which I do often when I'm chasing drivetrain noise).
Question: What would be the issue with using good ol' radio control to a battery powered loco and dead rail? Why does it have to be a digital-based signal like Bluetooth? On board sound and other features may not be possible with radio, but as a motor control, why would Bluetooth be more reliable than radio in a confinded space we run our layouts?
Thank you, gregc, for directly answering my question about DCC error checking.
And thank you also, Atlantic Central, for your observation about DCC sensitivity to dirty track.
I can't claim anything but the briefest experience with DCC, but I had many years with Hornby's Zero-1, and more than enough frustration with loss-of-contact due to dirty track and dirty wheels.
I never understood where the crap that built up on loco wheels came from. All I knew is it built up over time and had to be removed periodically. I used a Dremel tool and wire brush to clean it off. But it wasn't long before it built up again.
I assumed that imperfect contact between the loco wheels and the rails was generating sparks and some kind of electro-chemical reaction was generating the crud. But I was amazed at how much material built up with no clue as to where it was coming from. Sparks generate ozone, which is super-reactive. Was ozone eroding the nickel-silver rails? Was it also generating crud on the rails themselves? Good gosh, I dunno...
I thought about installing electrical brushes that made direct contact to the rails, bypassing the wheel/rail interface. I never did that, but I did install brushes that wiped on the surface of the loco wheels, bypassing the axle/frame interface. A bit better contact I think, but it didn't reduce the crud worth mentioning.
I read about a system that used high-voltage pulses to punch through oxide/crud in the wheel/rail interface. That sounded promising. If you have enough voltage that does work. With mains power (110 or 220VAC) it definitely does work. That's why we don't have to have our household outlets cleaned periodically. Again, something I thought about but never tried.
I am afraid as long as we have to use the wheel/rail contacts to pass power and/or control we're going to have issues. Dead rail avoids the power problem entirely. Keep alive, either battery or capacitor powered, seems to be a workable alternative. Bluetooth may be reliable enough to cure the signal error issues.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAnd yet DCC still seems to be more sensitive to dirty track
gregc Just Wanna Play If two devices start broadcasting at the same time they recognize their signals are interfering. Does DCC have that much intelligence? Can it detect when, for whatever reason, its signals have been corrupted? RFI? Wheel-to-rail discontinuity? DCC packets are only generated by one source, the command station which are then conveyed to the track thru 1+ boosters. there is no possibility of multiple senders. speed packets are repeatedly sent to handle corruption as well as intermittent loss of power (i.e. dirty track) each DCC packet includes an error detection byte
Just Wanna Play If two devices start broadcasting at the same time they recognize their signals are interfering. Does DCC have that much intelligence? Can it detect when, for whatever reason, its signals have been corrupted? RFI? Wheel-to-rail discontinuity?
Does DCC have that much intelligence? Can it detect when, for whatever reason, its signals have been corrupted? RFI? Wheel-to-rail discontinuity?
DCC packets are only generated by one source, the command station which are then conveyed to the track thru 1+ boosters. there is no possibility of multiple senders.
speed packets are repeatedly sent to handle corruption as well as intermittent loss of power (i.e. dirty track)
each DCC packet includes an error detection byte
And yet DCC still seems to be more sensitive to dirty track than DC based on my 56 years of experiance including about 15 years of frequent running of DCC on a number of large layouts.
I don't claim to know the answer, I just know that for me dirty track, stalling, etc, has never been much of a problem on my layouts, yet I have seen first hand the problems some seem to have with DCC.
Problems that prompt "keep Alive" circuity, endless track cleaning, etc.
Just Wanna PlayIf two devices start broadcasting at the same time they recognize their signals are interfering. Does DCC have that much intelligence? Can it detect when, for whatever reason, its signals have been corrupted? RFI? Wheel-to-rail discontinuity?
To quote Montgomery Scott, "The fancier the plumbing the easier it is to stuff up the drain."
When it comes to control signals how much and how fast is what matters.
I was involved in the development of Ethernet. An important part of that protocol is continuous error-checking. If two devices start broadcasting at the same time they recognize their signals are interfering. They stop, take a random delay time, and then try re-transmitting. Usually the difference in their delay times allow them to re-transmit without interference.
I don't know what Bluetooth has in way of error-checking, but I'm willing to believe it has something pretty robust, since the wireless data space is awfully full these days.
Wheel-to-rail discontinuities probably account for most issues. Loss of connection will mean loss of signal. That is obvious. But any break in the circuit will also generate sparks, and sparks are the ultimate electronic noise generators. Good reason to go dead-rail.
Well, being a DC operator, and never having all the track conductivity issues people seem to have with DCC, I don't see the point of dead rail.
My theory is that with any direct radio conncection to a decoder, and power on the track, it would become just like DC where electrical pickup isses seem to be less of a problem.
From what I have seen, DCC seems way more sensitive and I wonder if it is more about a disruption in the communication signal rather than a true loss of power in many cases?
I have said for years eliminating the signal on the rails would be the next important evolution in command control, no matter what kind of communication protocal is used.
While I understand the appeal of dead rail, I would MUCH rather install a decoder than batteries. Batteries have a charging life span so would need to be replaced eventually, which means dismantling the locomotive. While I might have to reprogram a decoder, that doesn't require taking anything part.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
rrebell Doughless Overmod PM Railfan LOL a tour thru a dead rail loco facility.... ya got your sand, water, coal, ash pit, and USB C charging port. Or sling a Qi-style coil under the locomotive or attached 'battery car' tender, and strategically spot the charging coils under coaling towers, in front of water towers, etc... when the scale coal gates open or the spigot drops, the power turns on. And yet dead rail sounds so uncomplex....... Not really but the batterys have been the proublem but that is gradually being fixed, their cost has come way down over time and their capacity has gone up. For charging their seem to be two camps, charge via a port or charge from rails.
Doughless Overmod PM Railfan LOL a tour thru a dead rail loco facility.... ya got your sand, water, coal, ash pit, and USB C charging port. Or sling a Qi-style coil under the locomotive or attached 'battery car' tender, and strategically spot the charging coils under coaling towers, in front of water towers, etc... when the scale coal gates open or the spigot drops, the power turns on. And yet dead rail sounds so uncomplex.......
Overmod PM Railfan LOL a tour thru a dead rail loco facility.... ya got your sand, water, coal, ash pit, and USB C charging port. Or sling a Qi-style coil under the locomotive or attached 'battery car' tender, and strategically spot the charging coils under coaling towers, in front of water towers, etc... when the scale coal gates open or the spigot drops, the power turns on.
PM Railfan LOL a tour thru a dead rail loco facility.... ya got your sand, water, coal, ash pit, and USB C charging port.
Or sling a Qi-style coil under the locomotive or attached 'battery car' tender, and strategically spot the charging coils under coaling towers, in front of water towers, etc... when the scale coal gates open or the spigot drops, the power turns on.
And yet dead rail sounds so uncomplex.......
Not really but the batterys have been the proublem but that is gradually being fixed, their cost has come way down over time and their capacity has gone up. For charging their seem to be two camps, charge via a port or charge from rails.
I was mainly joking about the types of installations being suggested.
But to a broader point, electronics aside, there are many model railroaders who believe that they should never touch the locomotives by hand, let alone take them off the rails (as a matter of nonmaintanence or repair).
Personally, I would simply take each one to the nearest outlet (adapted) and charge each loco when needed. Assuming they would have a port like a cell phone.
But if that is philisophically verboten to some, I would think that running the charge over the rails overnight would be the least complex way to charge the batteries. Installing ports all over the railroad or even in engine servicing (is that how it would be done?) seems like a more complex step to me.
Yes, the whole issue of charging dead-rail batteries does complicate things. I see it as the last technical barrier to having a bullet-proof power system.
One thing I have thought of is using expendible (not rechargable) batteries. Your basic Duracell or Energizer batteries. How many hours of operation could you get out of, say, a 9-volt battery or two? It would be interesting to find out. You might have to have a dedicated battery car to hook up behind your loco for this setup, but maybe that wouldn't be all that impractical.
How many hours of operation would be acceptable? Two hours? Four hours? Can we get there from here?
But if you are going that route rechargable batteries might make more sense. You could have a small fleet of battery cars that could be recharged on or off the layout from rails.
Charging off-layout could have the attractive feature of being safer. The whole charging operation could be carefully timed and controlled to prevent overcharging.
Charging on-layout, during operation, would have the advantage of only charging while you are running your trains. If a battery catches fire you are on-site with your fire extinguisher to save the day.
But maybe the answer is to avoid using lithium batteries. Nickel-Cadmium batteries have been around for decades and have a superb safety record. They aren't as energy-dense as lithium, but maybe we can trade-off some energy-density for safety.
There may be other kinds of rechargable batteries that could be more suitable. But like I said at the top, I see battery tech as the last technical barrier to a bullet-proof power system. There might be battery tech already existing that would be simple, safe and practical enough. Maybe just a little bit of research and experimentation will get us there.
Just Wanna Play I have pre-ordered six each Hornby HM7000 6-pin Bluetooth loco modules. They are listed for 31.99 British Pounds each. In US Dollars that currently totals about $235, or $39 each, give or take. Expected delivery is sometime summer 2024. The main reason I got in line for these modules is it appears Hornby really is committed to rolling out, promoting and supporting their version of Bluetooth control. Given my long and happy history with Hornby's ancestoral Zero-1 system I'm willing to give them a chance to sell me on HM7000. It doesn't hurt that they will apparently be the lowest-cost option. Looking into their control interface, Hornby is planning to offer a whole ton of sound effects, for which I currently have no interest whatever. I crave simplicity, remember? At least for now. In a couple of years, well, who knows? It is a shame that Bachmann's E-Z App and Bluerail's system aren't getting more traction. They had such promise. If Hornby comes through for me then my next job will be to integrate some kind of keep-alive, or even a dead-rail setup. I'd dearly love to leave behind all the issues with intermittent wheel-on-rail contact. Please note that I am not interested in what the vast majority of model railroaders are doing with their DCC systems. I'm taking my own path here. It should also be noted that any of the new Bluetooth systems can operate on a DCC layout, or even an analog layout. They only suck up power from the rails, completely ignoring the DCC control signals, using their own independent and non-interfering wireless control. If I ever want to run one of my Bluetooth locos on a DCC layout there shouldn't be any issues at all.
I have pre-ordered six each Hornby HM7000 6-pin Bluetooth loco modules. They are listed for 31.99 British Pounds each. In US Dollars that currently totals about $235, or $39 each, give or take. Expected delivery is sometime summer 2024.
The main reason I got in line for these modules is it appears Hornby really is committed to rolling out, promoting and supporting their version of Bluetooth control. Given my long and happy history with Hornby's ancestoral Zero-1 system I'm willing to give them a chance to sell me on HM7000. It doesn't hurt that they will apparently be the lowest-cost option.
Looking into their control interface, Hornby is planning to offer a whole ton of sound effects, for which I currently have no interest whatever. I crave simplicity, remember? At least for now. In a couple of years, well, who knows?
It is a shame that Bachmann's E-Z App and Bluerail's system aren't getting more traction. They had such promise.
If Hornby comes through for me then my next job will be to integrate some kind of keep-alive, or even a dead-rail setup. I'd dearly love to leave behind all the issues with intermittent wheel-on-rail contact.
Please note that I am not interested in what the vast majority of model railroaders are doing with their DCC systems. I'm taking my own path here.
It should also be noted that any of the new Bluetooth systems can operate on a DCC layout, or even an analog layout. They only suck up power from the rails, completely ignoring the DCC control signals, using their own independent and non-interfering wireless control. If I ever want to run one of my Bluetooth locos on a DCC layout there shouldn't be any issues at all.
I'm glad that you have found something that looks like it will meet your needs and wants.
And given the differences in modeling styles between the US and Europe, I am not surprised that Hornby would be the one to offer such a product.
I go my own way on control systems as well. With an advanced DC system that uses wireless throttles.
I have no interest in onboard sound, but plenty of interest in signaling and CTC. My system is very easy to use, you would problably like using it.
But from what you have posted thru this whole thread, you would not want to have to build it, it requires planning and wiring, a fair amount of both.
Let us know how the Hornby system works out.